From academy-of-management-annals-skills
Polishes Academy of Management Annals reviews for the house voice: authoritative, integrative, agenda-setting prose with a problem-first opening and contribution-stating abstract. Use after framework and evidence are settled.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/academy-of-management-annals-skills:amann-writing-styleThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The framework and evidence appraisal are settled and it is time to make the review *read* well
Annals is read by management and organization scholars across subfields, plus allied audiences (organizational psychology, sociology of organizations). The voice is that of a trusted, fair expert who has read the whole field and is willing to say what it got right, what it got wrong, and what to do next. Four qualities define it:
An Annals introduction differs from a research-paper intro and even from a generic review:
frame the field and its problem (what it studies, and the specific way it is fragmented/contradictory/confused) → why a review is needed now (a wave of work, a method shift, a hardened debate) → the organizing framework (the new way of seeing the field — the map the reader is given) → the position and the agenda (the "attitude" and what the review will conclude the field should do) → roadmap (brief).
State the framework and the position early. A review that withholds its organizing idea to a final section wastes the reader's time and reads as indecisive — the opposite of "attitude."
A review abstract describes what the review does for the field: the literature, why a review now, the integrative framework, the critical position, and the agenda. Avoid "we hypothesize / we find a coefficient…"; that is a primary-paper abstract. (Confirm any length/format limits at submission via amann-submission; 待核实.)
Annals reviews are long (~50 pages of text; 检索于 2026-06;以官网为准), and length is a privilege, not a license. Every section must earn its pages by advancing the argument about the field; confirmatory coverage (the lower tiers of amann-evidence-standards) belongs in compact citation clusters, not paragraph-length summaries. Use strong section architecture that mirrors the framework, periodic "where we are / where we go next" cues, and subsection summaries so a reader who puts the review down can re-enter without rereading.
【Opening arc】field+problem → why-now → framework → position+agenda → roadmap? Y/N
【Framework early】organizing idea stated up front? Y/N
【Attitude】names blind spots / over-studied / confusions, evidence-grounded? Y/N
【Integrative prose】streams in dialogue, not toured? Y/N
【Agenda】forward-looking, tied to framework gaps? Y/N
【Accessibility】intuition-first; jargon controlled for cross-subfield readers? Y/N
【Abstract】review-style (contribution to the field), not a single finding? Y/N
【Next skill】→ amann-editor-strategy / amann-submission
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin academy-of-management-annals-skillsRevises Annual Review of Economics reviews for the ARE voice: authoritative, accessible, signposted, with strong opening and forward-looking close. Polishes prose and structure after framework and evidence are settled.
Routes between amann-* sub-skills to sequence a comprehensive review article from topic selection through revision for Academy of Management Annals submissions.
Revises sociology review prose for the ARSoc voice: authoritative, accessible to outsiders, signposted, with a strong opening and forward-looking close.